The court established the necessity for proper consideration of Form 5 applications under applicable regulatory statutes.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P10 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

ii) Declare that the petitioner property is converted before the year 2008 and direct the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the Petitioner Ext.P3 Form 5 application and remove the entry of petitioner’s property from data Bank within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court.

iii) dispense with filing of the translation of documents in Malayalam produced in the above writ petition.

iv) pass such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. And v) Allow the writ petition writ petition with cost."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a Form – 5 application in accordance with the the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was rejected as per Ext.P8 order. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.33229 of 2023, and this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment, set aside Ext.P8 order and directed the authorised officer to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, the Form – 5 application was again rejected as per Ext.P10 order. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P10 order. In paragraph Nos.1 to 3, the details of the property and the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33229 of 2023 are narrated. Subsequently, the KSREC report is extracted. Thereafter, the report of the inspection conducted from the office of the authorised officer is extracted. Subsequently, the Form – 5 application was rejected. This is not the manner in which a Form – 5 application is to be considered. This Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ] considered the manner in which a Form – 5 application is to be considered. Therefore, I am forced to set aside Ext.P10 once again and the authorised officer should reconsider the Form – 5 application in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon’s case (supra).

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P10 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form – 5 application in the light of the observations in Ext.P9 judgment and also in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Vinumon’s case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-